Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotent/destructive=false annotations by stating the tool "opens nothing by itself" and returns step-by-step UI instructions rather than performing the send. That is the critical behavioral fact an agent needs, though nothing is said about how the guidance is scoped or formatted.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Core sentences are front-loaded and efficient, but the closing note about Weezevent's official REST API and partner documentation is tangential and includes an odd future check date, adding noise rather than helping the agent decide or act.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what is missing: what is returned (step-by-step instructions), what is not done (no opening/sending), and which tools complete the task. Only the shape/scoping of the returned guidance is left unspecified, which is minor.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The absence of parameters is also implicitly consistent with a pure guidance tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a misleading verb ("Send invitations") but immediately corrects it: it "Returns how to do it in Weezevent step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself." That makes the real purpose — a how-to guide, not an action — clear and distinguishes it from the cotlet_browser_* tools that actually perform the steps.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes usage: call this to learn the procedure, then execute it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Weezevent Cloud Browser. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use condition, but the hand-off to the browser siblings covers the main decision point.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.